Tag: Supreme Court

Categories
education and schooling judiciary

Thomas & Thomas

race, racism, Supreme Court, college, education

In the Students for Fair Admissions decision, the Supreme Court rules that using race as a criterion of university admissions is unconstitutional.

Ambiguous aspects of the decision and the determination of some universities to keep using race as a criterion mean that qualified applicants may, alas, still be penalized for being the “wrong” color. Unambiguous, though, is Justice Clarence Thomas’s rebuke of the decision’s dissenters for, among other things, assuming that only racism can explain the different average outcomes of ethnic groups.

“[N]one of those statistics are capable of drawing a direct causal link between race — rather than socioeconomic status or any other factor — and individual outcomes. So Justice Jackson supplies the link herself: the legacy of slavery and the nature of inherited wealth. This, she claims, locks blacks into a seemingly perpetual inferior caste. Such a view is irrational; it is an insult to individual achievement and cancerous to young minds. . . .”

Has Thomas been perusing the work of Thomas Sowell?

One of Sowell’s career-integrating insights is that statistics summarizing differences in average group outcomes are mute about the causes. 

One must investigate causally relevant facts.

Consider, for example, differences in characteristics and outcomes between subgroups of a broader ethnic group. Sole possible cause: racism? Or the fact that Asians on average perform better than whites in certain academic or economic categories. Sole possible cause: racism?

Just two of many pertinent questions that Dr. Sowell has asked as he, in his numerous books, surveyed our world’s cultures, lands, and histories.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Fifth Amendment rights general freedom property rights

Government Greed Swept in Double-Header

takings, property rights, Supreme Court

Geraldine Tyler lived long enough to see the U.S. Supreme Court rule against those who robbed her. She is 94.

On May 25, 2023, the Court determined in a 9-0 ruling that Hennepin County, Minnesota, is not constitutionally entitled to pocket the entire sale-price value of a condo in massive excess of the property taxes that Geraldine Tyler owed on the property when the government seized it for unpaid taxes.

Including penalties and interest, Tyler had owed about $15,000. But after selling the condo for $40,000, the county government seemed to think that $25,000 was a reasonable brokerage fee.

Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented Tyler in the case, argued that the county violated the Takings Clause of the Constitution by taking private property for public use “without just compensation.”

The Court agreed, saying that exploiting the debt “to confiscate more property than was due” effected “a ‘classic taking in which the government directly appropriates private property for its own use.’ ”

The ruling also rejects the county’s argument that Tyler somehow forfeited her constitutional rights by failing to pay her property taxes.

The same day, PLF also won another huge victory in the U.S. Supreme Court when the Court ruled that the EPA does not have limitless authority to block property owners from building on their own land if the agency chooses to designate a soggy part of the land a protected “wetland.”

Two for two. Not a bad batting average.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai and DALL-E2

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment education and schooling

Justice (Almost) Done

donuts, racist, college

It ain’t over until the money’s in the bank. But one wrong, long fought, may soon be righted. Justice done.

Years ago, Gibson’s Bakery won a judgment of $38 million against Oberlin College because of the Ohio school’s role in harassing the bakery and defaming it as “racist” after a 2016 shoplifting incident.  

The shopkeeper of the family-donuts, racist, college bakery, Allyn Gibson, caught students trying to steal wine. They attacked him. They were black.

For whatever reasons, students on campus chugged into uproar mode, accusing the bakery of racism as if it prefers to be robbed only by persons of pallor. 

The shoplifters eventually pled guilty and acknowledged that the bakery is not racist.

The students’ irrationality was bad enough. Then Dean of Students Meredith Raimondo chimed in, working with protesters to defame the bakery. The school canceled its contract with Gibson’s and would claim in legal filings that the bakery’s “archaic chase-and-detain policy regarding suspected shoplifters was the catalyst for the protests.”

In 2017, the bakery sued Oberlin and won.

Oberlin has been appealing. Now it has lost in the Ohio Supreme Court, which refused to hear the appeal.

Only the U.S. Supreme Court can save Oberlin now. But according to the Legal Insurrection blog, the chances that it will even consider the case are slim.

Is $38 million the right award? Perhaps Oberlin should pay Gibson’s $50 million. Or a cool billion. 

But Oberlin deserves to be punished just as Gibson’s deserves to be compensated. 

May this finally happen.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-E

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment ideological culture

Pushing Past Protest

Jane's Revenge, abortion, Supreme Court

A group called Jane’s Revenge is on a rampage against organizations known to oppose abortion.

“We promised to take increasingly drastic measures against oppressive infrastructures,” the manifesto declares. “Rest assured that we will, and those measures may not come in the form of something so easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti. From here forward, any anti-choice group who closes their doors, and stops operating will no longer be a target. But until you do, it’s open season.”

We don’t know how Jane’s Revenge is constituted. Maybe it will turn out to be just one woman with a keyboard. Whatever its form, though, it has acolytes, persons willing to damage the property of churches, anti-abortion pregnancy centers, and other anti-abortion organizations.

Jane’s Revenge has claimed responsibility for vandalizing the Agape Pregnancy Center in Des Moines this month. In Olympia, St. Michael Parish was spray-painted with the words “abort the church.” Dozens of similar incidents began in early May, when Wisconsin Family Action was damaged by arson and vandalism. (Family Research Center maintains a list of the attacks; Wikipedia curates a page about those attributed specifically to Jane’s Revenge.)

The Biden administration has finally made a pro forma objection to the violence being perpetrated by pro-abortion protesters. Too often, though, government officials and others have been conspicuously silent. Could it possibly be the case that they’re OK with violence as a means because they agree about abortion as an end?

This is tantamount to encouraging violence by the angry left — and not just when it comes to this particular controversial issue.

Thankfully, though there have been protests nationwide against the Supreme Court’s overthrowal, last week, of Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), there has so far been no “Night of Rage.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
media and media people national politics & policies

Shut Up, Spouse

Virginia "Ginny" Thomas, Justice Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court

“Stand down and let your better half do the job,” was the specific advice syndicated-columnist Kathleen Parker recently offered a woman, explaining that this woman’s “biggest mistake is that she thinks she’s important.”

Adding for emphasis: “She is not.”

Parker is not writing about Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, or Dr. Jill Biden. Her subject? Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Recollecting Ginni attending her writing seminar decades ago, Parker describes Ginni then as a “sweet, eager-to-learn 40-something,” who was “quite likable.”  

“But,” claimed Parker, “something has happened to the Ginni Thomas whom I knew then.”

What exactly? 

“Today,” we are told, “she’s entrenched with various hard-right conservative groups” and is “anti-feminist, anti-affirmative action, and, perhaps worst of all to her critics, pro-Donald Trump.”

Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! . . . seems Ginni Thomas dares to hold opinions with which Parker disagrees.

Moreover, explained the columnist, Ginni “has not been idle in politics, advocating for issues that, importantly, could come before the court on which her husband serves” — as virtually any issue under the sun could. Parker connected Ginni’s political participation to calls “on Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from cases in which his wife has been active.”

Every spouse of a Supreme Court justice has (or arguably should have) political views of his or her own. And the right — and propriety — to act on them. 

Though Parker’s whole column is rich, the cream of the irony has to be first listing Ginni Thomas as an “anti-feminist” and then suggesting she shut up and leave politics to her husband.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture judiciary national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

Packing Unpacked

Supreme Court, Justice, court packing

The “court packing” notion that progressives itch to implement has obvious flaws — which have been addressed (but not settled) in the recent report of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, initiated by the Biden Administration last April. 

The report, just out, did not give progressives what they want. “Opponents contend that expanding — or ‘packing’ — the Court would significantly diminish its independence and legitimacy and establish a dangerous precedent that could be used by any future political force as a means of pressuring or intimidating the Court. The Commission takes no position on the validity or strength of these claims.” 

Not a few Democrats wanted the Commission to take a very negative position on those claims. Democrats currently maintain a shaky hold on power in the Legislative and Executive branches. Had the Commission given them the green-light to push progressives onto the Court — to overwhelm the current “conservative” majority — they might have consolidated power.

The report is inconvenient for that political move — as is Associate Justice Stephen Breyer’s opposition. Damon Root, at Reason, summarizes Breyer’s case: “It is a tit-for-tat race to the bottom. One party expands the size of the bench for nakedly partisan purposes, so the other party does the same (or worse) as soon as it gets the chance.” Breyer fears that court-packing would undermine Court authority, and liberalism itself would suffer.

By “liberalism” I take Breyer to mean the order that is defined by the Constitution itself: separation of powers, basic rights, citizen control of government. And there is a way to save this kind of “liberalism”: fix the size of the Supreme Court in the Constitution.

The very opposite of court packing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary property rights

Landlords Defended, Sorta

Supreme Court, property rights, rent

In late June, the Supreme Court declined to end an unlawful CDC-enacted national moratorium on evictions.

Things have apparently changed. The court just ruled — in a 6-3 decision — that the “balance of equities” has tilted in favor of qualified deference to property rights and letting landlords try to financially survive.

Now it will be easier, or possible, for many beleaguered property owners to maintain properties — on which they depend for their livelihoods and tenants depend for things like heat as well as their residencies.

The three dissenters on the high court say that the “balance of equities” still tilts the other way, in favor of violating the property rights of landlords to help tenants unable or unwilling to pay the rent.

The court’s decision does not mention property rights. It does cite a 1972 precedent that cites other precedents “[requiring] Congress to enact exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power and the power of the Government over private property.”

Of course, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress no authority to violate individual rights at will — even if it uses exceedingly clear language to do so. The Constitution does not say it’s OK to violate the Constitution.

What now? 

Many landlords are still subject to state or municipal restrictions on evictions that this decision does not overturn. But the ruling may help them press for relief.

And we must hope that the U.S. Congress doesn’t get around to intelligibly re-revoking the rights of property owners.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary term limits

Term Limits or Death?

Supreme Court, packing

“The only responsible choice for Justice Breyer is to immediately announce his retirement,” contends Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, “so President Biden can quickly nominate the first-ever Black woman Supreme Court justice.”

Not merely pushing identity politics, Fallon is warning of the risk of “Democrats losing control of the Senate before a Biden nominee can be confirmed.” 

No retirement announcement yet from 82-year-old Stephen Breyer, who recently advised Democrats against court-packing. Having served on the High Court for the last 27 years, he is the oldest justice and second-longest serving.* 

“Democrats’ fears about Breyer come after [Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsburg refused to heed calls from liberals and former President Barack Obama to step down,” notes Forbes, “which ultimately resulted in Trump appointing conservative-leaning Justice Amy Coney Barrett to succeed her when Ginsburg died in September.” 

It is painfully obvious: life terms at the highest court have produced gamesmanship — not on the Court, mind you, but in Congress, that cesspool of even longer tenure where our supposed representatives do anything but.

And why allow personal circumstances or the vagaries of death to decide such potentially critical matters in our republic? 

To prevent politicians from politicizing the Supreme Court of the United States, put the number of justices (9) into the Constitution and term-limit those justices to a single 18-year term. No renomination. With nine justices, cycle one out and a new one in every two years. 

There are other matters to consider and settle. Do so in constitutional form, so the whole country is engaged and the Court is hereafter more secure and independent of that branch most in need of term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 * On the all-time Supreme Court longevity list, Breyer thus lags ten places behind Justice Clarence Thomas, who has served 10,767 days on the court and currently ranks 16th.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies

Constitutionalize the Court

Supreme Court, court packing

“To undo the damage Republicans did by stealing multiple Supreme Court seats,” argues Demand Justice, “we should immediately add seats to the Supreme Court and appoint justices who will restore balance.”

“Stealing”? That’s hyperbolic, to say the least. The Senate used its constitutional prerogative by refusing to approve President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 and four years later by swiftly voting to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

The group’s proposal? Add four new justices. 

Facing a 3 to 6 justice deficit (Dem-nominated vs. GOP-nominated), many Democrats and groups like this one have settled on adding four.

For “balance.” 

Which means, to them, going from the minority to the majority.

And you thought Democrats weren’t good at math!

Last week, President Biden announced a commission to look into this “court packing” notion, as well as other possible changes to the High Court, including term limits. 

“My colleagues and I need not wait for the findings of a commission,” offered Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.). It is “obvious,” he added, “we must expand the Supreme Court, before it’s too late.”

That is, before the next election or a resignation or tragic death of a single D-Senator might flip the Senate to Republican control. 

“Adding seats is straight-forward and easy,” reminds Demand Justice, correctly explaining that the Constitution specifies no number, “so Congress can change it at any time.”

Yes, even with the slimmest of congressional majorities Democrats could completely re-make the High Court. Without a single Republican vote. 

A partisan takeover of the Supreme Court is way too “easy” — until we place the number of justices firmly in the Constitution, away from poisonous partisan politicians. 

It’s the most urgent reform of all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies

Ghost of an Argument

Amy Coney Barrett, ACB, ,Supreme Court

On the 73rd anniversary of the birth of Hillary Clinton, the United States Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Mrs. Clinton, the former Democratic presidential candidate, looms in the background of the issue as a sort of éminence grise, a specter of the politics of the left. Had she won in 2016, late luminary RBG would have been replaced by a progressive woman. Not ACB.

For what would have been Hillary’s, count ’em, third nomination.

Not a specter, or grisey eminence, is Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Joe Biden’s partner in procuring 2020’s big prize. 

“I’m on my way to the Senate floor to vote no on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court,” Harris tweeted, yesterday. “Health coverage for millions of people hinges on who fills this seat. It’s clear that this nominee has the potential to do great harm to the American people.”

Note that this complaint has nothing to do with actual judicial qualifications. It has to do with a policy that Democrats insist upon: socialized medical billing. But as ACB made clear in the hearings, her judicial mindset is about legal process, as it should be, not government policy.

An hour later, candidate Harris asserted that Senate Republicans had “denied the will of the American people by confirming a Supreme Court justice through an illegitimate process.”

Illegitimate?

Well, you see, “more than 62 million people have already voted.” That is it. Harris pretends that since there is an election next week, and some people have already voted, the normal, constitutional business of Congress should not go on.

Anything to rescue their broken policy, Obamacare. 

Next week’s election sure will have consequences, but ACB’s stint on the Court resulted from Hillary’s quite legitimate loss.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts